Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
We agree with the position of the examiner as set forth
in the response to arguments section of the answer. Since
appellants have not addressed these specific findings of the
examiner, we sustain this rejection of claims 7-9 and 17.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-13
and 50 based on the teachings of Blakeney taken alone. The
examiner indicates how he finds obviousness on pages 6-8 of the
answer. With respect to claim 1, appellants argue that Blakeney
does not use first and second codes as claimed. Specifically,
appellants argue that using different phase offsets of a single
code is not the same as using different codes. Appellants also
argue that first and second demodulated signals are not generated
by the receiver [brief, pages 12-14]. With respect to the first
argument, the examiner responds that the different phase offsets
in Blakeney result in different codes as broadly recited in claim
1. We agree with this position for the reasons indicated by the
examiner [answer, pages 17-18]. With respect to the second
argument, the examiner notes that this is the same argument
discussed above with respect to claim 14. For reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 14, this argument is also not
persuasive of error in this rejection. Therefore, we sustain
this rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007